snowflake_suspend_alert

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Suspend an active alert') without revealing consequences, reversibility, required permissions, or side effects. For a state-changing operation, this is a significant gap—an agent cannot anticipate what happens to the alert or whether suspended alerts are permanently disabled.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is minimal (one short sentence), but it is under-specified rather than concisely informative. It lacks any structure that would make it easy to parse for key information, and it does not earn its place because it adds no value beyond the tool name. A well-structured description would front-load the core action and then provide contextual details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with three parameters (one required) and no annotation coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to identify an alert, what database/schema context is needed, what the output will look like, or any prerequisites. Even though an output schema exists, the description should still cover invocation essentials, which it entirely omits.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (database, alert_name, schema_name). The description provides no additional meaning beyond the raw schema, leaving the agent to guess what 'alert_name' refers to or how database and schema scope the operation. The description utterly fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Suspend an active alert' clearly identifies the specific verb (suspend) and resource (alert). It is unambiguous about the tool's primary action, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling alert operations like resume_alert or drop_alert. The name itself already conveys the purpose, so the description adds minimal extra clarity but is not misleading.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that alerts must be in an active state, that suspended alerts can be resumed later, or any prerequisites such as requiring appropriate permissions. An agent would have to infer usage entirely from the tool name and schema.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.